Is Organised Child Trafficking in America for Real?

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:00pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

It's clear that you haven't tried to read the report if you think a copy and paste would work.

As I said, your constant dodging and deflection indicates to me that you don't have much to back up your position and that reading the report would be 1.) a waste of time and 2.) most likely counter your claims very quickly on examination.
This has been my experience with other people using your tactic. You haven't done much to change my mind on that.

I'm only chiming in because you claimed that sane people would side with you.
That's clearly not the case...

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:01pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You can't answer the questions and you can't back up your claims with direct evidence

Imploring people read a report you can't provide basic answers from is absurd

I'm claiming the answers are in the report. I'll spoon feed you page numbers at some point.

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:06pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm claiming the answers are in the report. I'll spoon feed you page numbers at some point.

So rather than just give them, you've spent the last three pages repeating that you aren't going to give them and that you don't need to give them?
K...

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:08pm

King Mob wrote: »

So rather than just give them, you've spent the last three pages repeating that you aren't going to give them and that you don't need to give them?
K...

Did you miss where I said I haven't even finished reading it yet?

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 2:10pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm claiming the answers are in the report. I'll spoon feed you page numbers at some point.

It's not "spoon feeding", it's called supporting your claim. And you won't just be dumping page numbers either, you will be highlighting the specific parts that support specific claims.

This is really basic, elementary stuff

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:15pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Did you miss where I said I haven't even finished reading it yet?

Why do you need to finish it to provide the page numbers or to copy paste the relevant quotes?

Why would you make your claims as absolute fact when you haven't finished the report and can't use it to support your claims?
That seems like a contradiction.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:17pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not "spoon feeding", it's called supporting your claim. And you won't just be dumping page numbers either, you will be highlighting the specific parts that support specific claims.

This is really basic, elementary stuff

No I won't be reproducing any pages. I'll give you the page numbers and what I'm claiming, you can read those pages and dispute it.
Elementary.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:20pm

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you need to finish it to provide the page numbers or to copy paste the relevant quotes?

Why would you make your claims as absolute fact when you haven't finished the report and can't use it to support your claims?
That seems like a contradiction.

I'm trying to figure out what's behind the redactions by comparing contemporary newspaper reports, some of which I've posted here, and who they're referring to at the moment.
I will get to it.

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:24pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm trying to figure out what's behind the redactions by comparing contemporary newspaper reports, some of which I've posted here, and who they're referring to at the moment.
I will get to it.

Again, giving your dodging, I don't believe you and I don't think this will be forthcoming.

Also, if you are doing actual research, why post it here?
Why not go to a real news organisation?

Overheal · 01-11-2019 2:25pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No I won't be reproducing any pages. I'll give you the page numbers and what I'm claiming, you can read those pages and dispute it.
Elementary.

You refused to click on a Snopes link just a couple pages ago because you don’t like Snopes, and begged to have parts of the 1 page article spoon fed to you. Yet you expect others to sift through a large PDF and ‘incept’ whatever your conspiracy theory is by accepting (without citation) information you pretend fills in the blanks of redactions in this document. By your own admission you haven’t even finished “reading” this document yourself but expect others to do so, without telling them what they’re looking for, or why it is relevant to a conspiracy that you refuse to summarize.

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 2:28pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

No I won't be reproducing any pages. I'll give you the page numbers and what I'm claiming, you can read those pages and dispute it.
Elementary.

Nah that won't be happening, this isn't the Alex Jones show sorry.

What will be asserted without evidence will be dismissed without evidence

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:29pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again, giving your dodging, I don't believe you and I don't think this will be forthcoming.

Also, if you are doing actual research, why post it here?
Why not go to a real news organisation?

Because I made the mistake of thinking that people around here actually check links. I would prefer some help as I've asked previously.

The ones I've posted are from "real news organisations" as you put it.

ohnonotgmail · 01-11-2019 2:31pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because I made the mistake of thinking that people around here actually check links. I would prefer some help as I've asked previously.

The ones I've posted are from "real news organisations" as you put it.

you are the one making claims. it is up to you to support them. saying "the evidence is somewhere in this document, some of which is redacted" just doesnt cut it. you need to do your own homework.

Overheal · 01-11-2019 2:34pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because I made the mistake of thinking that people around here actually check links. I would prefer some help as I've asked previously.

The ones I've posted are from "real news organisations" as you put it.

Help with what? You refuse to outline your theory so what help is anyone else who isn’t psychic?

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 2:34pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you are the one making claims. it is up to you to support them. saying "the evidence is somewhere in this document, some of which is redacted" just doesnt cut it. you need to do your own homework.

Starting to sound like

"The evidence is somewhere in this document, that I haven't fully read yet, if you read between the lines, and if imagine what the redacted words are, and if you really, really, really believe in the conspiracy"

Rock solid

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:37pm

Overheal wrote: »

You refused to click on a Snopes link just a couple pages ago because you don’t like Snopes, and begged to have parts of the 1 page article spoon fed to you. Yet you expect others to sift through a large PDF and ‘incept’ whatever your conspiracy theory is by accepting (without citation) information you pretend fills in the blanks of redactions in this document. By your own admission you haven’t even finished “reading” this document yourself but expect others to do so, without telling them what they’re looking for, or why it is relevant to a conspiracy that you refuse to summarize.

Snopes? It seems you believe what they push. They were very wrong about Covfefe.
He's a primary document from the leaked/stolen google papers for you to look at.
Unlike your preference for filtered news, I prefer primary sources.
You might want to change your tag to reflect what it actually meant at the time Trump posted.

I will point people in the right direction as with page numbers, just hang on darling.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:38pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Starting to sound like

"The evidence is somewhere in this document, that I haven't fully read yet, if you read between the lines, and if imagine what the redacted words are, and if you really, really, really believe in the conspiracy"

Rock solid

You'd don't need to read between the lines.

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:39pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Because I made the mistake of thinking that people around here actually check links. I would prefer some help as I've asked previously.

The ones I've posted are from "real news organisations" as you put it.

But why would anyone check your link when you've offered nothing to show that your link contains anything to support your claims?

Maybe people are asking you to provide this before investing time in doing so?
But instead, you refused and dodged, making it look like there really isn't anything in your link at all.

But again, why post it here in the conspiracy forum? Why not current affairs or politics? Or if you believed you had actual evidence that the CIA was doing what you claimed, why not go to a news organisation with your discovery?

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:43pm

King Mob wrote: »

But why would anyone check your link when you've offered nothing to show that your link contains anything to support your claims?

Maybe people are asking you to provide this before investing time in doing so?
But instead, you refused and dodged, making it look like there really isn't anything in your link at all.

But again, why post it here in the conspiracy forum? Why not current affairs or politics? Or if you believed you had actual evidence that the CIA was doing what you claimed, why not go to a news organisation with your discovery?

I did post it where you've suggested.I didn't post it in the conspiracy forum. Ask the mod who did. Maybe he checked Snopes first?

Overheal · 01-11-2019 2:44pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Snopes? It seems you believe what they push. They were very wrong about Covfefe.
He's a primary document from the leaked/stolen google papers for you to look at.
Unlike your preference for filtered news, I prefer primary sources.
You might want to change your tag to reflect what it actually meant at the time Trump posted.

I will point people in the right direction as with page numbers, just hang on darling.

I have no idea what you are talking about, firstly. Secondly, the snopes link I provided was a one page article from the Associated Press, without alteration by Snopes.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:45pm

Overheal wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about, firstly. Secondly, the snopes link I provided was a one page article from the Associated Press, without alteration by Snopes.

As I said at the time I don't rate Snopes as reliable. I have no idea what you linked to.

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:47pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I did post it where you've suggested.I didn't post it in the conspiracy forum. Ask the mod who did. Maybe he checked Snopes first?

So then why are you continuing to post in the conspiracy forum when you've expressed zero interest in outlining or defending your theory and when no one will take it seriously by virtue of being in the conspiracy theory section along side faked mass shootings and pizzagate stuff?

Why should anyone take it seriously?

Overheal · 01-11-2019 2:48pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

As I said at the time I don't rate Snopes as reliable. I have no idea what you linked to.

Then I find none of your links reliable and have no idea what you linked to.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:51pm

Overheal wrote: »

Then I find none of your links reliable and have no idea what you linked to.

You linked to Snopes, I linked to the FBI, I see.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:52pm

King Mob wrote: »

So then why are you continuing to post in the conspiracy forum when you've expressed zero interest in outlining or defending your theory and when no one will take it seriously by virtue of being in the conspiracy theory section along side faked mass shootings and pizzagate stuff?

Why should anyone take it seriously?

I know, I think that was the idea.

Overheal · 01-11-2019 2:53pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You linked to Snopes, I linked to the FBI, I see.

Well if the FBI/CIA or whatever is trafficking children why should I trust them more than I trust a third party who egregiously misreported the meaning of Covfefe?

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 2:53pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

As I said at the time I don't rate Snopes as reliable.

That's cool, but that's your personal opinion

Let's see what Media Fact Check have to say on Snopes:

"These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

Overall, we rate Snopes Least Biased and High for factual reporting based on transparency and proper sourcing of information."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

King Mob · 01-11-2019 2:55pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I know, I think that was the idea.

I'm not sure what you mean. It would be more helpful if you didn't try to witty and clever and actually answered questions directly.

Your comment seems to imply that your thread was moved to conspiracy theories on purpose to discredit it.
Do you believe that the mod in question is part of the conspiracy? Or is it boards as a whole?

Is it possible that it's just that your theory is not that much different from the ones about fake school shootings etc.?

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 2:56pm

Overheal wrote: »

Well if the FBI/CIA or whatever is trafficking children why should I trust them more than I trust a third party who egregiously misreported the meeting of Covfefe?

I agree, no source should be above suspicion, including your favourite the WaPo.

The covfefe doc. posted comes from Google propaganda HQ.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:00pm

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean. It would be more helpful if you didn't try to witty and clever and actually answered questions directly.

Your comment seems to imply that your thread was moved to conspiracy theories on purpose to discredit it.
Do you believe that the mod in question is part of the conspiracy? Or is it boards as a whole?

Is it possible that it's just that your theory is not that much different from the ones about fake school shootings etc.?

I'm not trying to be witty and clever, I'm trying to use brevity.
Someone thought that a post on organised child trafficking was appropriate to the conspiracy forum.
Why try to conflate fake shootings with Child trafficking?

King Mob · 01-11-2019 3:05pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm not trying to be witty and clever, I'm trying to use brevity.
Someone thought that a post on organised child trafficking was appropriate to the conspiracy forum.

Ok, so why are they wrong?

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Why try to conflate fake shootings with Child trafficking?

That's a dishonest misrepresentation.
I am conflating your claims (that you have evidence that the CIA is engaged in child trafficking) and the claims about fake shootings.
You've done nothing to show that there is much difference.
And the more you dodge and go off on tangents about how snopes and google are part of the conspiracy...

Overheal · 01-11-2019 3:06pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm not trying to be witty and clever, I'm trying to use brevity.
Someone thought that a post on organised child trafficking was appropriate to the conspiracy forum.
Why try to conflate fake shootings with Child trafficking?

If you were going for brevity it seems to have backfired

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:09pm

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so why are they wrong?

That's a dishonest misrepresentation.
I am conflating your claims (that you have evidence that the CIA is engaged in child trafficking) and the claims about fake shootings.
You've done nothing to show that there is much difference.
And the more you dodge and go off on tangents about how snopes and google are part of the conspiracy...

I didn't bring up snopes.
I didn't try to use it to prove that google etc. were involved in child trafficking.
I provided a link to substantiate the CIA claim.

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 3:11pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I provided a link to substantiate the CIA claim.

You haven't. You've provided a link claiming it backs up your claim

Claim-ception if you will

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:13pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You haven't. You've provided a link claiming it backs up your claim

Claim-ception if you will

Point taken, I like that word.
All in good time.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:15pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

That's cool, but that's your personal opinion

Let's see what Media Fact Check have to say on Snopes:

"These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

Overall, we rate Snopes Least Biased and High for factual reporting based on transparency and proper sourcing of information."
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

I have provided primary evidence that Snopes have gotten it wrong, so i feel entitled to disbelieve them as fact checkers.

Overheal · 01-11-2019 3:18pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have provided primary evidence that Snopes have gotten it wrong, so i feel entitled to disbelieve them as fact checkers.

You didn’t even present what claim snopes made in relation to Covfefe?

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 3:21pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have provided primary evidence that Snopes have gotten it wrong, so i feel entitled to disbelieve them as fact checkers.

The BBC, NYT, Reuters, AP, etc have all made mistakes, it does not automatically mean they are inherently weak factual sources of information.

Go on then, out of curiosity, provide the direct Snopes link that was incorrect

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 3:24pm

Is this it?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covfefe-arabic-antediluvian/

King Mob · 01-11-2019 3:28pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I didn't bring up snopes.
I didn't try to use it to prove that google etc. were involved in child trafficking.
I provided a link to substantiate the CIA claim.

Yes, that's what you claim. But when asked how your link substantiates the claim, you are unable to answer. Hence it probably doesn't.

The people who believe in fake shootings also believe they have things supporting their claims.

TaurenDruid · 01-11-2019 3:31pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I have provided primary evidence that Snopes have gotten it wrong, so i feel entitled to disbelieve them as fact checkers.

No.

No, you didn't.

Stop claiming things that are plainly untrue.

TaurenDruid · 01-11-2019 3:32pm

Wait. I'm fairly new to the CT board.

Is this actually some kind of RPG, or performance art?

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:33pm

Overheal wrote: »

You didn’t even present what claim snopes made in relation to Covfefe?

I'm never going back there.
I have given you a primary document.

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 3:34pm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Wait. I'm fairly new to the CT board.

Is this actually some kind of RPG, or performance art?

Standard M.O. for conspiracies, you get used to it after a few years

Overheal · 01-11-2019 3:35pm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Wait. I'm fairly new to the CT board.

Is this actually some kind of RPG, or performance art?

No LARP I’m afraid but you’re welcome to roll a character sheet the party could do with a Druid

Dohnjoe · 01-11-2019 3:36pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm never going back there.
I have given you a primary document.

This is it
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covfefe-arabic-antediluvian/

I just used the same format to input it into translate and didn't get any translation. Looks like Snopes is correct in this case. Lucky I work with two Arabic colleagues, I'll check with them

Overheal · 01-11-2019 3:36pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I'm never going back there.
I have given you a primary document.

Then I trust the snopes link which summarily addresses the inaccurate google translation.

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:37pm

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, that's what you claim. But when asked how your link substantiates the claim, you are unable to answer. Hence it probably doesn't.

The people who believe in fake shootings also believe they have things supporting their claims.

I've already posted the name of the CIA agent in charge. Go back and read.

I'm sure they do.

Overheal · 01-11-2019 3:38pm

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I've already posted the name of the CIA agent in charge. Go back and read.

I'm sure they do.

You haven’t outlined the conspiracy yet

Spencerfreeman · 01-11-2019 3:39pm

Overheal wrote: »

Then I trust the snopes link which summarily addresses the inaccurate google translation.

Fine. I've shown an actual doc which disproves that.

Is Organised Child Trafficking in America for Real?

Comments